DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
LAW PREVENTION PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT TREATMENT HEALTH
Vol. 14, No. 2
Appeals Court
Reverses Courts
Revictimization
of the Victim
by Joan Meier, Esq.
Ms. Murphy and Mr. Okeke
had been romantically involved
when Mr. Okeke invited her to
Authorized Reprint
attend a party at his apartment
on July 4, 2003. Upon discov-
ering from a guest that Okeke
was sleeping another woman,
Murphy began to cry and yell.
In response, Okeke demanded
that Murphy leave his apart-
ment. When she did not, Okeke
assaulted herand after the
guests all left he continued to
beat her so violently that she
jumped out of a second story
window to escape. She received
emergency room treatment and
missed several weeks of work.
Murphy filed for a civil protec-
tion order (CPO) against Okeke
in the D.C. Superior Court.
After learning of the petition,
he filed a cross-petition alleging
Murphy had physically and ver-
bally assaulted him and had also
destroyed some of his property
(i.e., the computer she climbed up
on to get out of the window). The
CPO hearing was scheduled to
commence after Okekes criminal
trial for his assaults against Mur-
phy. In the meantime, Temporary
Protection Orders (TPOs) were
issued on behalf of both parties,
and were extended repeatedly
while the criminal trial was pend-
ing. During the criminal trial Ms.
Murphy was painted by defense
counsel as drunk and out of con-
trol. The judge apparently agreed,
See COURT REVERSES, page 23
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
ISSN 1086-1270
Electroshock: The Gentlemans
Way to Batter Women
by Bonnie Burstow, Ph.D.
Daily, in institutions in almost every
part of the world, peoplemainly
womenare wheeled into special
rooms and administered ECT (electro-
shock or electroconvulsive therapy).
In the United States alone, six mil-
lion human beings have undergone
this treatment (see Frank, 2006), and
ECT is on the horizons of many more.
This is so because there is a profitable
industry built on it (see MindFreedom,
20022003). This happens because
psychiatry is what sociologist Dorothy
Smith (1987) calls a regime of rul-
ing, that is, a regime with the power
to dictate reality; and in psychiatric
discourse, ECT is a benign, safe, and
effective solution to a troubled mind
one which has received bad press to
be sure, but which is new, modified,
and to be trusted (see, for example,
the discourse of Fink, 1999). This hap-
pens for other reasons also which will
become clearer as this article unfolds.
Now, for a safe and effective treat-
ment, ECT has been marked by a
strange history of the people presum-
ably benefiting from it curiously ral-
lying to have it discontinued. There
have long been protests and, indeed,
formidable campaigns waged against
ECT by survivors and their allies
books written, demonstrations staged,
city councils appealed to (see Burstow,
2006a and 2006b)but they have not
succeeded in curtailing the treatment.
Indeed, as shown in MindFreedom
(20022003), it is on the rise.
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Internet Publication of Protection Order Information:
Federal Law and Privacy Principles to Guide Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Restraining Order Cases From Around the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Pages 17 32
December/January 2009
As suggested by Breeding (2007),
while the average person is unaware
that ECT is still usednever mind
on the risewhere people become
aware, initially, they may be con-
cerned, for something about ECT sits
wrong, but they generally back off,
announcing that they are not medical
experts and suggesting that perhaps
the treatment is necessary. Such is
the power of a regime of ruling. The
fact is, despite decades of protest and
despite a degree of public discomfort
with ECT, it is protected by medical
hegemony which frames how we are
to think. That being the case, what I
am doing hereaddressing electro-
shock as violence and situating an
article to that effect in a publication
on violencenecessarily flies in the
face of common sense. The point is,
psychiatry is a prestigious helping
profession, and electroshock is a stan-
dard psychiatric treatment intended
to help, and as such, common sense
dictates, it must be of some use, and
whatever its shortcomings, minimally,
it could not qualify as violence. As fem-
inists have long understood, however,
deconstruct what is purportedly done
for ones own good, and violence will
often be found.
Professional misrepresentations of
electroshock are the backdrop against
which this article is written. What this
See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
18 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT December/January 2009

ELECTROSHOCK, from page 17 recently, modified shock was intro- The Scientific Findings:
duced in the 1940s and was stan- ECT as Damage
article will demonstrate is that con- dard practice by the mid-fifties. The As early as the 1950s, animal experi-
trary to hegemonic medical discourse, major modifications are use of a mus- ments established that ECT causes brain
electroshock harmsindeed violates. cle relaxant and application of oxygen damage. For example, in a definitive
Moreover, despite the gender-neutral during the procedurethe purpose double blind study, Hartelius (1952)
terms in which it is couched, it is only being to prevent bone fractures and examined the slides of the brains of
too gendered and is properly under- joint dislocations. Typically, a single catshalf of which had received elec-
stood as a form of violence against ECT series consists of at least six to troshock. On the basis of observable
women. Most of this article explores ten treatments (see Frank 1978 and brain damage (cell death and hemor-
the violent nature of ECT, particularly 2006; the Electro-convulsive Therapy rhages), with almost complete accuracy,
focusing in on the gendered nature Review Committee, 1985; Breggin, he was able to identify which animals
of that violence. The article ends with 1979; Breggin, 1991; Breggin, 1997; had been administered shock.
a reflection on the implications for Breggin, 1998). To cite relevant research on human
those concerned with violence against beings with respect to both unilat-
women. While the article in no way How Did ECT Begin? eral and bilateral shock, Weinberger
limits the understanding of that vio- (1979) found more cerebral atrophy
While no treatment could be ade-
lence to comparisons to domestic in the brains of schizophrenics who
quately assessed on the basis of its
abuse, at various points through- have had ECT than those that have
origins, beginnings can be instruc-
out, additionally, the resemblance to not. And in an ECT study, Calloway
tive. Invented in fascist Italy, ECT
domestic abuse and what this resem- (1981) found a correlation between
was inspired by the sight of animals
blance reveals is highlighted. frontal lobe atrophy and ECT.
en route to the slaughter being ren-
dered docile by an electrical cattle Memory loss, intellectual impair-
Technically Speaking, prod. The first human recipient was a ment, and the creation of neuropathol-
What Is ECT? homeless man who was dragged off the ogy are standard and well documented.
ECT is a psychiatric procedure street and administered it against his An experimental study (Templer, Ruff,
which consists of passing sufficient will. As documented in Frank (1978, and Armstrong (1973)) establishes that
electricity through the head (100 pp. 811), no sooner did the first jolt ECT causes permanent memory loss
190 volts) to produce a grand mal of electricity surge through the head and general intellectual impairment.
seizure or convulsionhence the of the first electroshock recipient On the basis of a critical review of the
term electroconvulsive therapy. In than he bolted upright, screaming literatureincluding animal and human
unilateral shock, both electrodes are in horror, Non una seconda! Mor- autopsy, epilepsy and seizure studies,
placed on one side of the head, while tificare! (Not again, it will kill me.) and studies of memory loss and intel-
in bilateral shock, one electrode is Later, the inventor, Cerletti, acknowl- lectual impairmentTempler and Vele-
placed on each side. While the term edged, When I saw the patients ber (1982) concluded that ECT causes
new improved shock or modi- reaction, I thought to myself: This permanent brain pathology. Breggins
fied shock creates the impression ought to be abolished (see Frank,
that something substantial changed 1978, p. 11). See ELECTROSHOCK, page 25

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT TM

Editor: Joan Zorza, Esq. Board of Advisors

Associate Editors: Nancy K.D. Lemon, Esq.
Mindy B. Mechanic, Ph.D.
Anne L. Perry, Esq.
Managing Editor: Lisa R. Lipman, Esq.
Editorial Director: Deborah J. Launer
Publisher: Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Associate Publisher: Mark E. Peel
Domestic Violence Report is published bimonthly by Civic Research
Institute, Inc., 4478 U.S. Route 27, P. O. Box 585, Kingston, NJ 08528.
Periodicals postage paid at Kingston, NJ and additional mailing office
(USPS # 0015-087). Subscriptions: $165 per year in the United States
and Canada. $30 additional per year elsewhere. Vol. 14, No. 2.
December/January 2009. Copyright 2008 by Civic Research
Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to Civic Research Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 585, Kingston,
NJ 08528. Domestic Violence Report is a trademark owned by Civic
Research Institute and may not be used without express permission.
The information in this publication is not intended to replace the
services of a trained legal or health professional. Neither the editor,
nor the contributors, nor Civic Research Institute, Inc. is engaged in
rendering legal, psychological, health or other professional services.
The editor, contributors and Civic Research Institute, Inc. specifi-
cally disclaim any liability, loss or risk, personal or otherwise, which is
incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and
application of any of the contents of this report letter.
Jacquelynne J. Bowman, Esq., Associate Director, Greater
Boston Legal Services, Boston, MA
Donald Cochran, Ed.D., Professor, Northeastern Univer-
sity, Criminal Justice School, Boston, MA
Drew Diamond, Senior Associate, Police Executive
Research Forum; formerly Chief of Police, Tulsa, OK
Janet Fink, Esq., Deputy Counsel, Office of Court Admin-
istration, New York State
Anne Flitcraft, M.D., Associate Professor, University of
Connecticut School of Medicine
Juley Fulcher, J.D., Ph.D., Director, Break the Cycle,
Washington, D.C.
Gary Gibbons, MA, LPC, Director, AMEND, Denver, CO
Susan Hadley, MPH, Adjunct Faculty, University of
Minnesota Medical School
Barbara Hart, Esq., Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, Harrisburg, PA
Jennifer Long, Esq., Director, National Center for the
Prosecution of Violence Against Women, National
District Attorneys Association/American Prosecutors
Research Institute
Joan Meier, Esq., Professor, George Washington Law
School, Washington, D.C.
Leslye E. Orloff, Esq., Assoc. Vice President of Legal
Momentum, Washington, D.C.
Carol M. Parr, Acting Director, Michigan Office of
Services for the Aging
Elizabeth Schneider, Professor, Brooklyn Law School,
Brooklyn, NY
Rita Smith, Executive Director, National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, Denver, CO
Evan Stark, Ph.D., MSW, Associate Professor of Public
Administration, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ
Phyllis H. Subin, Esq., Consultant, Albuquerque, NM
Roberta L. Valente, Assistant Director, Family Violence
Department, National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges, Washington, DC
Affiliations shown for identification purposes only. Opinions
expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies
of a writers agency or association.

2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
December/January 2009
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 18
extensive literature review (1998, p. 27)
culminated in the following conclusion:
ECT causes severe and irreversible brain
neuropathology including cell death. It
can wipe out vast amounts of retrograde
memory while producing permanent
cognitive dysfunction.
Especially significant and equally
harrowing are the conclusions of neu-
rologists. While few neurologists have
conducted research into ECT or indeed,
even commented on it, they have special
credibility here for they are uniquely
qualified to speak of brain damage and
they have no vested interests, that is, no
personal or professional reason to either
approve or disapprove of ECT. Those
neurologists who have researched it
have been unequivocal, declaring it a
brain-damaging procedure, one neurol-
ogist (Friedberg, 1977) actually naming
one of his articles Shock Treatment Is
Not Good for Your Brain, and another,
Sidney Samant, redefining electroshock
as brain damage produced by elec-
trical means (quoted from Breggin,
1991, p. 184).
While minimizing or totally deny-
ing the damage done, ECT promot-
ers defend the use of shock on the
basis of its alleged effectiveness in
alleviating depression and prevent-
ing suicide. However, research shows
that the efficacy claims are false. In a
rigorously controlled double blind
study, Lambourne and Gill (1978)
found that a month after shock and
simulated shock, there was no dis-
cernable difference in improvement
between the shock and control groups.
They concluded that shocks alleged
effectiveness is probably due to pla-
cebo. Research by Johnstone (1980)
and Crow and Johnstone (1986) pro-
duced similar results. In 1991, Breggin
(p. 207) concluded, after more than
fifty years there is no meaningful evi-
INTERNET PUBLICATION, from page 24
9. See VAWA and Privacy, http://www.epic.
org/privacy/dv/vawa.html.
10. 18 U.S.C. 2265(d)(3).
11. 42 U.S.C. 13925(a)(20).
12. U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Records, Computers and the Rights
of Citizens, 4142 (1973).
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
dence that this dangerous treatment
has any beneficial effect. As late as
2006, Colin Ross (2006) did an exten-
sive review of the literature on sham
ECT. No indication was found that
this brain-damaging treatment outper-
forms placebo.
The Latest Significant Piece
of Research
Shortly after the Ross (2006) find-
ing, the largest and most ambitious
study in ECT history was concluded.
It involved 346 shock recipients, used
a barrage of different measures, and
involved six month follow-up. Headed
by a long time and staunch shock
advocate, the study (Sackeim et al.,
2007) established cognitive impair-
ment, brain damage, and memory
impairment to the level of statistical
significancemoreover, a high level of
significancewith respect to both uni-
lateral and bilateral electroshock, and
indeed, for every method of delivering
electroshock, including the newest.
Effective in Doing What?
Profits and career motivations aside,
the longstanding discrepancy between
the doctors claims of effectiveness
and what research actually establishes
raises the question of whether or not
psychiatrists impression of effective-
ness is based on something other than
lowering depression and preventing
suicide. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin
(1991, p. 212) attributes it to ECTs
ability to control behaviour via fear
and punishment, and by way of illus-
tration, he calls attention to telling
statements made by his colleagues. For
instance, he cites one colleague who
used the expression, lets throw the
book at him to denote lets give him
ECT and another as telling a man that
the treatment would help his wife by
virtue of a mental spanking. Indeed,
such statements are suggestive. What is
13. Id. at viii.
14. Id. at 4142.
15. Organization for Economic Security and
Co-Operation, OECD Guidelines on the Protec-
tion of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal
Data (1980), available at http://222.oecd.
org/document/18/0,2340,en_2749_34255_
1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html.
16. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, A Review of
the Fair Information Principles: The Foundation
25
also significant, psychiatrys long and
documented use of terror and tor-
ture, lends support to Breggins posi-
tion. Note, in this regard, such torture
apparatus as the ovary compressor and
such torturous procedures as repeti-
tively dunking a patient in ice water
(see Szasz, 1977 and Frank, 1979).
Breggin (1979) and (1991) advances
a further explanation. A good part of
what is impressing his colleagues, he
suggests, is precisely the controlled
behaviour, memory loss, and intellec-
tual impairment arising from brain
damage. He also maintains that his
colleagues are aware that brain dam-
age is operant.
There is merit to these claims. With-
out question, brain damage frequently
renders people easier to control and
in a profession with the job of control-
ling behaviour, more controlled eas-
ily translates into improved. There
is no question, additionally, but what
inspired the inventor of ECT was pre-
cisely the docility of the animals who
had been stunned by the electrical cat-
tle prods. And minimally, psychiatrists
who administer shock would have to
be aware of memory loss, for there is
a huge literature on it and patients
routinely complain about it (see, in
this regard, Burstow, 2006 and Frank,
2006). Correspondingly, psychiatrists
who administer shock have been
known to make statements which show
that they are not only aware of but are
counting on that memory loss. By way
of example, at a review board hearing
at which I testified as an expert wit-
ness, the psychiatrist who was seeking
permission to force electroshock on a
woman who was not eating took the
patients lawyer aside and told the law-
yer that electroshock would solve the
problem, for after shock, the woman
would not remember why she was not
See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
of Privacy Public Policy, http://www.privacy
rights.org/ar/fairinfo.htm.
17. Los Angeles Police Department v. United Pub-
lishing Group, 528 U.S. 32 (1999).
18. Id. at 35.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 37.
21. What is a CAPTCHA?, http://recaptcha.
net/captcha.html.
26 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 25
eating and so would likely resume
eating. Additionally, there is reason
to believe that electroshock promot-
ers throughout the years have been
aware of profound damage beyond
memory loss and, to varying degrees,
have counted on that additional
damage. Take Abraham Myersona
Women are subjected to electroshock two to
three times as often as men. Approximately 95%
of all shock doctors are male.
prominent psychiatrist who was abso-
lutely pivotal in popularizing electro-
shock. Significantly, Myerson explic-
itly lists the brain-damaging capacities
of ECT as a virtue, explaining:
I believe there have to be organic
changes or organic disturbances in
the physiology of the brain for the
cure to take place. These people
have for the time being at any rate
more intelligence than they can
handle . . . and the reduction of
intelligence is an important factor
in the curative process (quoted
from Breggin, 1979, pp. 142143).
By the same token, in the days
before acknowledging brain damage
became verboten, current electro-
shock guru Max Fink (1973) expressly
and repeatedly linked ECT effective-
ness with brain dysfunction.
The point is clear. At very best, damage
to the integral person is being accepted
as necessary even if unfortunate. And at
worst, it is damage per se which is being
seen as the source of the improvement;
and it is damage per se that is being
actively sought. In both cases, but most
dramatically with the latter, what is hap-
pening constitutes violence.
Doctors, of course, can deliberately
damage the brain without intending
the damage as punishment or control.
However, as Breggin (1991) docu-
ments, routinely, shock doctors identify
the patients greater compliance as
evidence of shocks effectiveness. More-
over, irrespective of conscious intent,
brain damage renders patients more
compliant, and, as will be demon-
strated in later sections of this paper,
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
December/January 2009
the prospect of brain damage evokes study proves conclusively that women
terror and keeps patients in line. incur more damage from electro-
shock than men. To be clear, this find-
Statistics: What Do They Tell Us? ing comes as no surprise to those of
The quotation from Myerson sug- us who have been listening carefully
gests that some peoples brains are to shock survivors over the decades.
expendable. A look at electroshock We were well aware that we were hear-
statistics quickly reveals which peoples ing more horrendous stories from the
brains. Throughout the history of ECT, women than from the menstories
one statistic remains constant: Women of 20 years of memory wiped out, sto-
ries of not being able to navigate their
lives any more (see Ontario Coalition
to Stop Electroshock, 1984). However,
it does bring home a frightening truth
about electroshock. Strip away the
medical verbiage and the simple fact
is that the people most damaged by
electroshock (women) are adminis-
tered electroshock two to three times
are subjected to electroshock two to as often as the people less damaged
three times as often as men. To cite as by it (men), with the damage coming
examples statistics from different eras overwhelmingly at the hands of men.
and locations, a 1974 study of elec- Now as lawyer and shock survivor
troshock in Massachusetts reported Carla McKague points out (Burstow,
in Grosser (1975) revealed that 69% 1994), psychiatrists who promote shock
of those shocked were women. By the typically defend the ratio by point-
same token, in Ontario in 19992000, ing out that shock is most commonly
75% of the shock administered was given for depression and that women
administered to women. And in 2007, are simply depressed approximately
British Columbian psychiatrists billed two to three times more often than
for 558 ECT treatments for women as men. However, besides that damaging
contrasted to 275 for men (see Health womens brains is hardly a satisfactory
Planning Division, British Columbia solution to the societal ills that depress
Ministry of Health, 2008). Another women, as has already been shown,
statistic that seems relevant is that electroshock has no special efficacy
approximately 95% of all shock doc- in relieving depression. Moreover, as
tors are male (see Grobe, 1995). the Electro-convulsive Therapy Review
Factor in these statistics, and a fright- Committee (1985) found, women are
ening and indeed anti-woman picture electroshocked two to three times as
of ECT emerges: Overwhelmingly, it often as men irrespective of diagnosis.
is womens brains and lives that are In other words, the justifications
being violated by shock. Overwhelm- do not add up. Indeed, it is difficult
ingly, it is womens brains, memory, to make sense of what is happening
and intellectual functioning that are unless we shift the lens and dispense
seen as expendable. Insofar as people with notions like treatment. The
are being terrorized, punished, and point is, despite the medical arena in
controlled, overwhelmingly, those which it is played out, what we appear
people are women. And what is likely to be witnessing is intentional injury
not coincidental, almost all the peo- not legitimate treatment. And while
ple making the determinations and injury is horrific regardless of who is
wreaking the damage are men. being injured, we are particularly see-
These statistics and their implica- ing women targeted. To put the statis-
tions are alarming in themselves. tics and the findings into the larger
A finding in 2007 makes the statistics all context of gender violence, we are see-
the more alarming. In the 2007 study ing the gender most commonly hurt
referred to earlierthe largest study by the other gender targeted by that
in electroshock historySackeim gender. And we are seeing the gender
et al. (2007) broke down the findings most likely to be horrendously hurt by
by gender. Using a battery of scientific the treatment targeted by the other
tests, with all measures established to
the level of statistical significance, the See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
December/January 2009
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 26
gender. What we are seeing, in other
words, is violence against women.
Something of the purpose of this
violence is suggested in Breggins
reference to a colleague who urged
a husband to agree to the shocking
of his wife because it would help,
functioning as a mental spanking
(Breggin 1991, p. 212). Spanking
bespeaks the infantilization of women
at the hands of men. Moreover, the
entire incident bespeaks mens use of
violence to keep women in line.
As feminists, it is critical that we
understand this violence better. And
it is critical to approach the issue from
the standpoint of those most affected.
I proceed, accordingly, to what women
who have been electroshocked say
about their experiences.
Women Electroshock Survivors
Speak Out
Damage, Impairment, Diminished
Lives. Damage to the brain, impair-
ment of memory and other cogni-
tive functions, and the dismal effects
on the womens lives are recurring
themes in women survivors testimony.
Significantly, solely on the basis of what
they were experiencing, all ten women
shock recipients discussed in an article
on women electroshocked in the Bay
area (Warren, 1988) thought that the
purpose of electroshock was to erase
memory. Correspondingly, all women
shock survivors interviewed for my
video (Burstow, 1994), all women
shock survivors who testified in front
of the Toronto Board of Health
(Phoenix Rising Collective, 1984), all
but one woman survivor who testified
at the first ECT hearing in Toronto
(Ontario Coalition to Stop Electro-
shock 1984), and all but one who
testified at the second (Electroshock
Panel 2005) spoke at length about
their difficulty navigating the world
because of electroshock-induced
damage. Examples of problems listed
by women include: not being able
to recall current conversations and
ongoing events; inability to remem-
ber events that happened or people
they knew prior to shock; loss of
skills; being able to manage mundane
repetitive jobs only; the sense of being
diminished. To quote one survivor to
give you an extent of the injury:
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
Im missing between eight and
fifteen years of memory and
skills . . . . I was a trained classical
pianist . . . Well, the pianos in my
house, but . . . it just sits there.
I dont have that kind of ability
any longer . . . . People come up
to me . . . and they tell me about
things weve done. I dont know
who they are. I dont know what
theyre talking about . . . . Mostly
what I had was . . . modified shock,
and it was seen as effective. By
effective, I know that it is meant
that they diminish the person.
They certainly diminished me . . . .
I work as a payroll clerk for the Pub-
lic Works Department. I write little
figures, and thats about all . . . And
its the direct result of the treat-
ment (Phoenix Rising Collective,
1984, 20A21A).
Damage to memory and other cog-
nitive functions and profound inter-
ference in family and other social life,
correspondingly, are highlighted in
Shirley Johnstons testimony (Phoenix
Rising Collective, Ed., 1984, 21A22A):
The damage done to my brain . . .
is still evident . . . . The memory loss
is especially painful, since I could
not remember a lot of times while
the children were growing up . . . .
The two older childrenI do not
remember their graduations. Many
times, my family and friends would
bring up happenings that I had to
question them about, to test wheth-
er my memory would return. Usual-
ly not. I feel so alien because of this
damage . . . . One of my childrens
school interviews was terrifying,
because I didnt want to reveal . . .
the gaps in my memoryI was still
in the closet. Finally when the anxi-
ety got so bad, I would completely
avoid people.
Typically, other womens stories
likewise reveal profound disruption in
their being-in-the-world. Wendy Funk
(1998) writes about being cared for
by strangers whom she never came to
remember (husband and children).
Linda Macdonald writes about never
retrieving any of her pre-shock mem-
ory (see Burstow and Weitz, 1989). Sue
Clark-Wittenburg (see Clark-Witten-
burg, 2008), who received five shocks
onlyan unusually small number
reports that 35 years later, she still has
27
difficulty keeping track of what she is
about from hour to hourlet alone
day to day. Who knows what I would
have become if I was not forced to
undergo shocka doctor, a lawyer, a
scientist? she asks.
While it figures in the discourse
less frequently and less urgently, some
women additionally refer to bodily
injury. For example, Wendy (Funk,
1998) reports that the seizures injured
her knee permanently. And Shirley,
who was given unilateral shock and so
would expectably be affected more on
one side than the other refers to gen-
eral bodily weakness but particular
weakness on the right side, stating:
It became very difficult to lift my
lower spine and middle back . . .
When I am tired, there are times my
mouth will not form words. At times,
I have lost the use of my right arm
and right leg (quoted from Phoenix
Rising Collective, Ed., 1984).
Assault and Trauma. Repeatedly,
womens testimonies connote a sense
of the entire process as an ongoing
assaultbeing herded into the room,
being strapped down, ones head
being encased in a band, being unable
to breathe, being rendered uncon-
scious, having ones body violated by
shock, being brain-damaged. I feel
like Ive been gotten at, bashed, as
if my brain has been abused, states
one of the women in the Johnstone
study. It can feel like a brutal assault
on who you are, states another (see
Johnstone, 20022003, p. 46). Some
women pointedly identify the process
as torture, and urge us to understand it
as such. Sue, for example, proclaims:
All the therapy in the world is not
going to erase the scars of being
dragged into a room, having a band
on your head, and having your
brains fried. People say theres no
torture in Canada. Thats pure
bullshit. And excuse my language.
There is torture being paid for by
the Ministry of Health (quoted
from Burstow, 1994).
Figuring in the sense of assault is the
sense of being treated like an animal,
a sense of being led to the slaughter.
One survivor explicitly speaks of the
feeling of being led to the slaughter on
See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
28 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 27
treatment mornings and knowing when
they put the needle in, it meant black-
ness and waking up with the splitting
headache and not knowing where my
room was even (quoted from Ontario
Coalition to Stop Electroshock, p. 180).
In line with survivor depictions,
British researcher Lucy Johnstone
(20022003) identifies ECT-induced
trauma in all the women shock sur-
vivors interviewed in her study. The
trauma, however, is more extensive
than even Johnstone suggests. Testi-
mony by shock survivors typically lays
bare extreme states of terror, the feel-
ing of being powerless, the sense of
being humiliated and degraded, the
subjective sense of annihilation, of
dying. Why did I have to die thirty-six
times? asks a shock survivor at a recent
hearing in Toronto (Electroshock
Panel, 2005). Your hearts a muscle,
and your lungs a muscle, and all of
your muscles stop, points out shock
survivor Connie Neil, and each time,
you feel like you are dying, and then
they shoot electricity through your
head, and then you dont know any-
thing (quoted from Burstow, 1994).
Feelings of humiliation and deg-
radation are equally evident in survi-
vor testimony, and as with the sense
of death and doom, they are tied to
the assault, to the sense of being pur-
posefully mistreated. I felt like an
animal; and they strip you of your
self-worth, state survivors (quoted
by Baldwin and Froede, 1999, p.
185). By the same token, a woman in
the Johnstone study states, I felt as
if I was a non-person (p. 49). State-
ments like these, it should be noted,
are hardly new to those of us in the
VAW world, for they are strikingly
similar to statements found in the
domestic abuse literature (see, for
example, Martin 1981).
As with all victims of ongoing abuse,
additionally, the women typically
express a sense of having no control,
of being powerless. For example, a
woman at a public hearing testified,
I never felt so helpless in all my life
(quoted from Baldwin and Froede,
1999, p. 185). The sense of helplessness
joins with the sense of diminishment
in womens depiction of themselves as
being infantilized (see, for example,
Baldwin & Froede, 1999, pp. 184185).
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
December/January 2009
Terror, humiliation, and sense of wrong to deserve such punishment (see
helplessness, significantly, stem at once Johnstone, 20022003, p. 49).
from the damaging and terrorizing As with other forms of violence
treatment and from the larger objective against women, punishment and con-
context of a total institutionan insti- trol go hand in hand. Woman after
tution which controls all aspects of life. woman has testified that the real pur-
The context is such, correspondingly, pose of the ECT was social control.
that it mutually constitutes the woman Cognitive impairment or memory
shock recipient as powerless child who loss is frequently identified as the
knows that she will not be heard and means. The rationale is: What can-
the presiding male as all powerful par- not be remembered, cannot be acted
ent who knows what is best and will on (see in particular Warren, 1988;
enforce it. Velma Orlikows compelling Funk, 1998; and Ontario Coalition
description of her experiences on the to Stop Electroshock, 1984). Corre-
ward illustrates one of the ways these spondingly, if people are so impaired
different elements can come together that they cannot function, behaviour
in the traumatizing present: seen as undesirable may be altered
(see, Funk, 1998 and the Ontario
I never saw him once that I wasnt Coalition to Stop Electroshock 1984).
afraid. Every time I saw him com- Still more commonly, women testify
ing down the hall, Id shake with to being kept in line via fear of ECT.
fear . . . . Id say, I cant, I cant
take it any more. I dont think this There was always the fear . . . that you
is doing me any good. I feel worse. are going to appear a little outside
And hed walk down the hall a little the norm, says shock survivor Con-
way and put his arm on my shoulder nie Neil. You must not be anything
and say, Come on now, lassie, you that is outside the norm because . . .
know youre going to do it (quoted if you are, you will be taken to a
from Burstow & Weitz, 1988, hospital, you will be strapped down,
pp. 202204). and you will be given electroshock
(Ontario Coalition to Stop Electro-
The patriarchal nature of such vio- shock, 1984, p. 90).
lence is not lost on women survivors. Connie makes the point more force-
Many have used words to suggest fully still in the Burstow (1994) video:
that it is battery by men. Note, in this
regard, psychiatric survivor Ollie May All I did was have a baby. And look
Bozarths classical reference to elec- at what they did to me. Now if I
troshock as a gentlemans way to beat really did something, what would
up a woman (Bozarth, 1976, p. 27). they do to me next? So you have to
As with all trauma (see Herman be very very careful . . . . You fit in.
1992 and Burstow 2003), the effects You play a role.
of the trauma remain long after the
events which occasioned them pass. ECT, it would seem, is effective in the
Significantly, women explicitly refer way abuse is always effectiveby inspir-
to the low self esteem and the sense of ing fear of further violation. Addition-
powerless continuing (see, for exam- ally, a vicious cycle sets in, with ECT
ple, Burstow, 1994). As is common in used to stop women from complaining
trauma, however, it is the ongoing fear about the effects of ECT. Significantly,
which is most emphasized. Note, in many women have testified that when
this regard, Connie Neils statement, they spoke of the treatments mak-
But the biggest thing, I think, is the ing them worse, they were told in no
business about the terror and the uncertain terms that continued com-
violence. This just doesnt go away plaints would be interpreted as illness
(quoted from Burstow, 1994). and result in further treatment. Not
Punishing/Controlling Women. Not surprisingly, women reported protect-
all women who experience electroshock ing themselves by obeying (see, for
as assault see it as punishment. Most, example, Funk, 1998). What is also
however, do. In this respect, Connie Neil telling, women psychiatric survivors
states, It was meant to be punishment who have not been shocked describe
(quoted from Burstow, 1994). And
women report wondering what they did See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
December/January 2009
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 28
the very witnessing of shock in the
institution as both traumatizing and as
an everpresent threat. It was a threat
to those of us who were not to receive
ECT to get our act together really
quickly or else this could happen to
us, stated a woman at one of the hear-
ings (Ontario Coalition to Stop Elec-
troshock, 1984, p. 161 ff.).
Add all this up, and what you have is
battery complete with extensive injury,
trauma, intimidation, danger. Put all
this together, correspondingly, and
what emerges is a formidable and com-
prehensive method of social control.
The fact that such control is primar-
ily exercised over women would raise
the question of gender role enforce-
ment even if womens own testimony
did not suggest it. Womens testimony,
however, blatantly suggests it.
Women have testified to ECT being
used to control their sexuality (see
Blackbridge and Gilhooly, pp. 4550).
I told my shrink I didnt want to
be cured of being a lesbian, writes
Gilhooly. He said that showed how
sick I was. He said I needed shock
treatment . . . . Nineteen shock treat-
ments later, I still did not want to be
cured of being a lesbian.
ECT in the interest of compulsory het-
erosexuality is clearly operant.
Being controlled as a wife figures
particularly centrallygenerally with
the psychiatrist seeking this control,
sometimes with the husband tricked
into cooperating, sometimes with him
actively instigating. British Columbias
Wendy Funk is a case in point. In 1989,
states Wendy, the following conversa-
tion transpired between her husband
and her doctor:
Cant you tell her to . . . spend
more time at home? Dr. King
asked.
I try but she doesnt listen to me,
Dan joked.
So you cant control your wifes
behaviour? Dr. King asked. (Funk,
1998, p. 15).
Dr. King explained to Wendy that
her problem arose from neglect-
ing her house and being consumed
by feminist-type thinking (p. 48).
Locked in a ward, with Dan urging
cooperation, and her doctor pushing
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
ECT and threatening to ship her far
away if she refused, Wendy consented
and was shocked. Wendys psychiatrist
later pressured for further ECT, tell-
ing her, You really should have ECT
for the sake of your family if nothing
else. Making Dan worry about you so
much is not a good thing for a wife
to do (p. 91). Patriarchal enforce-
ment of stereotypical wife and mother
behaviour is evident.
Patriarchal control is equally
marked in the stories of other women
who received electroshock while mar-
ried. Why dont you care for your
baby? Why dont you care for your
husband? Why dont you smarten up?
Connie was asked before the electrical
assaults began (quoted from Ontario
Coalition to Stop Electroshock, 1984,
p. 87). Women saw shocks purpose
as fixing the marriage with fixing
them as the route. Shock treatments is
a helluva of a way to treat marital prob-
lems, objected one woman in the
Warren study (Warren, 1998, p. 296).
A particularly extreme example of
wife control happened in the Allen
Memorial at the hands of renowned
psychiatrist Alan Cameraone time
head of the World Psychiatric Asso-
ciation. Cameron used rapid ECT to
depattern or wipe clear the mind and
reduce patients to the level of infants.
On top of being given shock, taped
messages played as the patients slept,
with the same personally tailored mes-
sage playing over and over. An example
of a message given to one woman who
was in conflict with her husband was
you are at ease with your husband
(quoted from Gilmour, 1987).
Another extreme example of ECT in
the service of wife control is the prac-
tice of couples therapist H. C. Tien.
Tien used electroshock to effect what
he called memory loosening with
women in marital difficulty. Tran-
scripts of dialogues between Tien and
one married couple show the woman
prior to shock complaining that her
husband beat her and announcing her
wish to leave him. After each ECT treat-
ment, at Tiens instigation, the woman
was reprogrammed by her husband,
who bottle-fed her. In the end, the
woman declared that she was happy
with her husband and she was pro-
nounced cured (for documentation,
see Breggin, 1991). What we have here
is: (a) the infantilization of women;
29
(b) sexist brain-washing; (c) collusion
between husband and psychiatrist; and
(d) battery which is both institutional
and domestic. Now Cameron and Tien
are extreme examples to be sure, but
examining the extreme is helpful for it
writes large the dynamics inherent in
more everyday use of ECT on women.
Involvement of Male Partners
As is evident in the foregoing, others
from the womens private lives tend
to be implicated in the shock experi-
ence, and not uncommonly, those oth-
ers are male partners. Most men who
are implicated are worried about their
partners and think that they are help-
ing. Equally significantly, however,
they have been socialized to trust men
in authority and to see fixing women
as a solution to lifes problems.
Collusion between husband and
doctor is a slippery slope which gener-
ally begins with husbands, at the psychi-
atrists behest, urging their partners to
have ECT, or what is particularly com-
mon, authorizing it for them. Indeed,
in many cases, if not most, as testimony
reveals (see Ontario Coalition to Stop
Electroshock 1984 and Electroshock
Panel, 2005), married women receive
ECT as a result of their husband sign-
ing the consent form, often against
their own wishes. Many husbands have
no idea that damage will be done.
Most of the rest may have nagging
doubts but are largely reassured by the
doctors insistence that ECT is new,
modified, safe, effective. Still other
male partners, however, are aware of
and even counting on some degree of
damage. And whether they knew about
damage in advance or not, some relish
the damage (see Warren 1988).
In the Warren study (1988),
significantly, which included inter-
views with the husbands of women
electroshocked, a number of hus-
bands expressed satisfaction with the
memory loss. In this regard, Warren
(1988, p. 294) writes, Mr. Karr com-
mented on his wifes long-term mem-
ory loss as proof of her successful cure
by ECT . . . . These husbands used
their wives memory loss to establish
their own definitions of past situations
in the marital relationship.
There is a continuum here, and it
would be unfair to view all husbands
See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
30 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 29
who cooperate with the shocking of
their wives in the same light, especially
given the hegemony of psychiatry. At
some point, nonetheless, the institu-
tional abuse that is called electroshock
decisively enters the arena of domestic
abuse even where men are not batter-
ing their wives in any traditional sense.
The combination of husband plus
medical establishment plus threat of
further ECT is formidable in its ability
to control women. Once again, Warren
(1988) is instructive. Women told War-
ren that they refrained from express-
ing any kind of problems to their hus-
bands, for fear of reprisal in the form
of ECT (p. 296). What we have here
is a medical-marital web of control
which includes threats, which involves
damage, and which leaves women very
little room to maneuver. Ways in which
husbands have been implicated in
this medical-marital web of control of
women include: battering their wives
while treating the battery as irrelevant
and their wives mental health prob-
lems as the real issue; consenting
to the electroshocking of their wives;
pressuring wives to consent; suggesting
shock; acting as a spy for the psychia-
trist; advising the doctor of bad behav-
iour; threatening to report noncom-
pliance even while knowing that this
threat will predictably result in further
control and potentially further electro-
shock; and using their wives medically-
induced memory problems to ensure
that their own views of the marriages
are accepted (see Warren, 1988, Funk,
1998, Burstow, 1994, and Ontario
Coalition to Stop Electroshock, 1984).
Electroshock on the Heels of
Other Violence Against Women
What adds to the complexity of
understanding ECT as violence against
women, as is evident in the foregoing, are
the complex relationships between hav-
ing already been subjected to another
form of violence against women and
being subjected to ECT. Approximately
half of the shock survivors interviewed
in my video (Burstow, 1994) reported
having told their psychiatrists that it was
upset over previous or current sexual
abuse or battery that landed them in
the hospital. In all instances, the women
informed me, nothing happened to the
abusive relatives or partners, but the
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
December/January 2009
women were electroshocked. In some pushed to have her electroshocked.
cases, the women were accused of lying. In this regard, the woman states:
Even where psychiatric staff did not
Before we left the house . . . she
deny the abuse, correspondingly, it was [mother] was explaining [to other
largely regarded as irrelevant. Consider
relatives] why she wanted me up
in this regard, the following intercharge here, you know, she wants me to
with ECT survivor Usha:
have the full treatment, she says . . . .
Bonnie: Let me ask you something She said that she thought it would
I dont understand . . . . Nowhere make me forget all those things . . . .
did they say that your husband My mother wants me to have shock
should stop beating you and abus- so that Ill forget all those things
ing you and that [the abuse] may that happened. (p. 294)
have something to do with whats While the mother may well have
happening to you? convinced herself that she was simply
sparing her deluded daughter further
Usha: No. They didnt even want to agony, the daughter was effectively
listen to me that my husband was silenced regardless.
doing something to me and that The types of silencing suggested
its because of that Im so much here, I would add, are confirmed in
stressed out and so sad. my own psychotherapy practice. The
Bonnie: So you told them about it message that women predictably get
and what did they say? from such invalidation, violation, and
threat of violation are: Complaints are
Usha: They just ignored it, no? counterproductive.
(quoted from Burstow, 1994). What is more fundamental, and
Consider also the fate of teenager what makes the issue of prior violence
Sue (in Burstow, 1994). Sue ran away particularly complex, severely violated
from home because of repeated women are in special jeopardy of ECT
abuse. She ended up homeless, then whether or not ECT is being used to
in a psychiatric ward, where she made silence them. They are also likely to
it clear that abuse at home was at the be traumatized more if given ECT.
root of her problem. She was not In this regard, as shown in Burstow,
believed. Subsequently institutional- 1994; Burstow, 1992; and Burstow &
ized in another hospital and still not Weitz, 1988, routinely, women end
listened to, Sue was given electro- up in psychiatric institutions precisely
shock. At best, abuse is being ignored because of violence against women.
or disbelieved and ECT is being used Once inside, women with such a his-
to control women. As its worst, ECT tory are at greater risk of ECT not only
is being used to silence women about because they are frequently depressed
their abuse. but also because, as demonstrated in
Additionally, while I am not sug- Burstow (1992 and 2003), trauma-
gesting that this is standard, as wom- tized women more commonly cope in
ens testimony reveals, more blatant ways that psychiatry theorizes as dan-
types of silencing can also motivate gerouscutting themselves, starving
the use of electroshock. Significantly, themselves. Correspondingly, if they
a woman in my video who had been are given electroshock, as Johnstone
sexually abused by her psychiatrist was (20022003) demonstrates, retrauma-
threatened with electroshock should tization occurs. As such, ECT consti-
she ever divulge the abuse. Other tutes a special threat to violated women
women reported comparable threats and is one of the ways in which the
by abusive male relatives. trauma of women is compounded.
Moreover, sometimes women are
electroshocked because the family as
Women in Special Jeopardy
a whole finds the eradication of abuse Several of the populations of women
memories in their interests. A woman at particular risk of being subjected to
in the Warren study (1988) appears to this medicalized assault are evident in
be a case in point. According to her, the foregoing. They include: women
she was sexually abused by her mater- who are distressed, abused women,
nal uncle. After the relatives denied
the abuse, her mother successfully See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
December/January 2009
ELECTROSHOCK, from page 30
women who are in conflict with oth-
ers who hold power over them, women
who have received ECT previously,
women who have not improved
on psychiatric drugs, women who
present as suicidal, women who are
depressed. As testimony delivered in
the public hearings makes amply clear,
the latter group includes women who
are suffering from post-partum depres-
sion, despite how natural postpartum
depression is and despite its tendency
to resolve itself. Significantly, woman
after woman has testified to being given
shock just after the birth of her baby
(see, for example, Ontario Coalition
to Stop Electroshock 1984). What no
doubt contributes to this jeopardy, psy-
chiatric guidelines for giving electro-
shock explicitly stipulate that neither
pregnancy nor post-partum are coun-
ter-indications for giving ECT (see, for
example, Mental Health Evaluation &
Community Consultation Unit, 2002).
One group which is not obvious but
which merits special mention because
the jeopardy is now so extreme is
women over 65. As ECT statistics over
the last couple of decades show, old age
correlates with greater electroshock.
Moreover, older women are given shock
considerably more than either older men
or women in any other age bracket, with
some statistics showing women over 65
receiving half of all electroshock given
to anyone (see Weitz 2001) some show-
ing women over 65 receiving half of all
electroshock given to women (see Health
Planning Division, British Columbia
Ministry of Health, 2008). The target-
ing of the elderly is particularly wor-
risome, for besides that it is harder
for the elderly to defend themselves,
research shows that the elderly sustain
greater brain injury from the treatment
(see Breggin, 1991, p. 205 ff.) More-
over, given that women as a whole incur
more damage from electroshock than
men, older women should be the very
last group subjected to this dangerous
treatment; and yet this population is the
primary target of electroshock. The low
societal value placed on elderly women
is hardly coincidental.
Concluding Remarks
The image of electroshock which
has emerged in this article is one of
woman batterybattery which is highly
damaging and which is unleashed on
2008 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT
women at their most vulnerable. It is a
particularly insidious form of battery,
moreover, and one difficult to mobilize
against because it is done in the name
of help. What adds to the problem, it is
committed by professionals; its victims
are automatically defined as not cred-
ible; it is state-sponsored; it is seen as
legitimate; it is underpinned by a huge
industry with vested interests; it is rou-
tinely done with the cooperation of fam-
ily members; and there are no shelters
to which its victims or potential victims
may flee.
It is beyond the scope of this article
to provide detailed suggestions about
what feminists can do about this form of
woman abuse, though clearly, we have
a responsibility here. To highlight a few
possible directions, concrete measures
that might be taken include: creating
and disseminating feminist critiques
of ECT; getting together with others
similarly situated to issue professional
statements as concerned nurses, as
concerned VAW workers, as concerned
social workers; allying with psychiatric
survivor organizations and antipsychia-
try organizations to mount public edu-
cationals; joining in the annual interna-
tional protest against ECT on Mothers
Day; lobbying government; conducting
research into ECT as a form of violence
against women; including work to end
ECT in the mandate of feminist organi-
zations; coming to the aid of women at
imminent risk; extending the working
definitions of battery used at womens
shelters; refusing to work in any way
with people or organizations implicated
in the shock industry; investigating what
is happening to the women warehoused
in geriatric units.
I would end by reminding readers of
the special jeopardy of older women.
I end, correspondingly, by reminding
readers that we will all grow old.
Dr. Burstow is a faculty member in the Department
of Adult Education and Counselling Psychology at
the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the
University of Toronto, a feminist psychotherapist,
and an antipsychiatry activist who has written exten-
sively on electroshock. She is best known for her book
Radical Feminist Therapy: Working in the Context
of Violence.
She is currently working on a novel whose nar-
rator has been subjected to electroshock. Dr. Burstow
can be reached at: Department of Adult Education
and Counselling Psychology, Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V6 or bburstow@oise.
utoronto.ca.
31
References
Baldwin, S. & Froede, E. (1999). Toronto pub-
lic hearings on electroshock. International Jour-
nal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 12, 181192.
Blackbridge, P. & Gilhooly, S. (1988). Still
sane. In B. Burstow & D. Weitz (Eds.), Shrink-
Resistant (pp. 4454). Vancouver: New Star.
Breeding, J. (2007). Psychologist testifies be-
fore the Austin city council about electroshock
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5LIVAaNrQ).
Breggin, P. (1998). Electroshock: Scientific,
ethical, and political issues. International
Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 11, 540.
Breggin, P. (1997). Brain-disabling treatment in
psychiatry. New York: Springer.
Breggin, P. (1991). Toxic psychiatry. New York:
St. Martins Press.
Breggin, P. (1979). Electroshock: Its brain-
disabling effects. New York: Springer.
Burstow, B. (2006a). Electroshock as a form
of violence against women. Violence Against
Women, 12, 4, 372392.
Burstow, B. (2006b). Understanding and
ending electroshock: A feminist imperative.
Canadian Woman Studies, 15, 115122.
Burstow, B. (2003). Toward a radical under-
standing of trauma and trauma work. Vio-
lence Against Women, 11, 12931317.
Burstow, B. (1994). When women end up in those
horrible places. Video. Toronto: Burstow.
Burstow, B. (1992). Radical feminist therapy.
Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Burstow, B. & Weitz, D. (Ed.). (1989). Shrink-
Resistant. Vancouver: New Star.
Calloway, S. (1981). ECT and cerebral atrophy.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 64, 441445.
Clark-Wittenberg, S. (2008). The Sue Clark
story. Narrative read at Madness, Citizenship,
and Social Justice: A Human Rights Confer-
ence, June 13, 2008.
Crowe, T. & Johnstone, E. (1986). Controlled
trials of electroconvulsive therapy. Annals of
the New York Academy of Science, 462, 1229.
Electro-convulsive Therapy Review Commit-
tee (1985). Report of the Electro-convulsive
Therapy Review Committee. Toronto: Elec-
tro-convulsive Therapy Review Committee.
Electroshock Panel (2005). Day One, Inquiry
into Psychiatry 2005. Toronto: Toronto City
Hall, April 9.
Fink, M. (1999). Electroshock: Repairing the
mind. London: Oxford University Press.
Fink, M. (1973). Convulsive therapy. New York:
Raven.
Frank, L (2006). The electroshock quotationary.
(http//www.endofshock.com).
Frank, L. (1978). The history of shock treatment.
San Francisco: NAPA.
See ELECTROSHOCK, next page
32 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT December/January 2009

ELECTROSHOCK, from page 31 Ontario Coalition to Stop Electroshock (1984).

SUBSCRIPTION
INFORMATION
Domestic Violence Report (DVR) is
published six times annually. A basic
one-year subscription to DVR is $165
plus $14.95 postage and handling. Non-
exempt New Jersey and New York resi-
dents please add appropriate sales tax.
TO ORDER
Complete the information below and
mail to:
Civic Research Institute
P.O. Box 585
Kingston, NJ 08528
or online: www.civicresearchinstitute.com
Freidburg, J. (1976). Shock treatment is not good
for your brain. San Francisco: Glide.
Funk, W. (1998). What difference does it make?
Cranbrook, B.C.: Wild Flower Publishing.
Gilmore, D. (1987). I swear by Apollo. Mon-
treal: Eden.
Grobe, J. (1995). Beyond Bedlam. Chicago:
Third Side Press.
Grosser, G (1975). The regulation of elec-
troshock treatment in Massachusetts. Massa-
chusetts Journal of Mental Health, 5, 1225.
Hartelius, H. (1952). Cerebral changes fol-
lowing electrically induced convulsions. Acta
Psychiatrica Neurologica Scandinavica, 77 (Sup-
plement), 1128.
Public hearings on electroshock. Transcripts
of testimony presented at city hall on October
13, October 20, and October 27 1984. Toron-
to: Ontario Coalition to Stop Electroshock.
Phoenix Rising Collective (Ed.). (1984). Tes-
timony on electroshock, Phoenix Rising, 3 and
4, 16A22A.
Ross, C. (2006). The sham ECT literature:
Implications for consent to ECT. Ethical
Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 1718.
Sackeim, H. et al. (2007). The cognitive
effects of electroconvulsive therapy in com-
munity settings. Neuropsychopharmacology, 32,
244255.
Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world a problem-
atic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Enter my one-year subscription to
Domestic Violence Report at $165
plus $14.95 postage and handling.
Enter my order for Violence Against
Women: Three-Volume Set $315 plus
$16.95 postage and handling.
Enter my order for Stalking: Psychol-
ogy, Risk Factors, Law $125 plus $10.95
postage and handling.
Enter my order for Programs for
Men Who Batter $125 plus $10.95
postage and handling.
Health Planning Division, British Columbia
Ministry of Health (2008). ECT Report (ect_
report_2002-2007l.XLS)
Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New
York: Basic Books.
Johnstone, E. (1980). The Northwick Park ECT
trial. Lancet, December 2027, 13171320.
Johnstone, L. (20022003). Electroshock in
UK linked to psychological trauma. Mind-
Freedom Journal, 45, 4850.
Lambourne, J. & Gill, D. (1978). A controlled
comparison and simulated and real ECT.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 113, 514519.
Szasz, T. (1977). The manufacture of madness.
New York: Harper Colophon.
Templer, D., Ruff, C., & Armstrong, G.
(1973). Cognitive impairment and degree
of psychosis in schizophrenics given many
electroconvulsive treatments. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 123, 441443.
Templer, D. & Veleber, D. (1982). Can ECT
permanently harm the brain? Clinical Neuro-
psychology, 4(2), 6266.
Warren, C. (1988). Electroconvulsive thera-
py, the self, and family relations. Research in
the Sociology of Health Care, 7, 283300.

Name Mental Health Evaluation & Community Weinberger, D. (1979). Lateral ventricu-
Consultation Unit (2002). Electroconvulsive lar enlargement in chronic schizophrenia.
therapy: Guidelines for health authorities in Brit- Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 735739.
Firm/Agency/Institution ish Columbia. Vancouver: British Columbia Weitz, D. (2001). Ontario electroshock sta-
Ministry of Health Services. tistics. Unpublished figures released under
Address MindFreedom (20022003). Electroshocks the Freedom of Information Act. Toronto:
secret comeback. MindFreedom Journal, 45. Ontario Ministry of Health.

City

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT

State Zip Code Civic Research Institute, Inc. PERIODICALS
4478 Route 27 P.O.Box 585 U.S. POSTAGE
Kingston, NJ 08528 PAID
Phone Number

E-Mail Address
Electronic Copy
Purchase Order # Copyright 2009 Civic Research Institute, Inc. This article was originally published in
Domestic Violence Report and is reproduced here with permission. All other reproduction or
distribution, in print or electronically, is prohibited. All rights reserved. Domestic Violence
Report is a bimonthly professional report letter devoted to innovative programs, legal
Missing or damaged issues? developments, and current services and research for those protecting, assisting, counseling,
Call Customer Service at 609-683-4450. and treating the victims of domestic violence. For more information, write Civic Research
Institute, 4478 U.S. Route 27, P.O. Box 585, Kingston, NJ 08528 or call 609-683-4450.
Reprints: Parties wishing to copy, reprint, distribute or
adapt any material appearing in Domestic Violence Report Web: http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/dvr.html.
must obtain written permission through the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC). Visit www.copyright.com and
enter Domestic Violence Report in the Find Title field.
You may also fax your request to 1-978-646-8700 or

contact CCC at 1-978-646-2600 with your permission
request from 8:00 to 5:30 eastern time.